Moldova vs Saint Kitts and Nevis: Men's universal right to vote

Moldova
1
in 2025
Saint Kitts and Nevis
1
in 2025
Moldova rank
1st
Saint Kitts and Nevis rank
1st

Men's universal right to vote over time

  • Moldova
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
00.20.40.60.81180019122025

How they compare

Moldova currently reports 1 against 1 in Saint Kitts and Nevis, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 86 shared years of data; in 1940 it was Moldova ahead.

Moldova ranks 1st and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 1st of 197 countries.

Moldova has averaged higher in every one of the 9 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Moldova Saint Kitts and Nevis Difference Ahead
1940s 1 0 1 Moldova
1950s 1 0.8 0.2 Moldova
1960s 1 1 0 β€”
1970s 1 1 0 β€”
1980s 1 1 0 β€”
1990s 1 1 0 β€”
2000s 1 1 0 β€”
2010s 1 1 0 β€”
2020s 1 1 0 β€”

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher men's universal right to vote, Moldova or Saint Kitts and Nevis?
Moldova, at 1 against 1 in Saint Kitts and Nevis as of 2025.
What is the difference in men's universal right to vote between Moldova and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
0, with Moldova ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Moldova and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
86 years are reported by both, from 1940 to 2025.
How do Moldova and Saint Kitts and Nevis rank globally for men's universal right to vote?
Moldova ranks 1st and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 1st of 197 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Men's universal right to vote. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Men's universal right to vote
Source
Lexical Index (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
198 places, 32,485 data points, 1789–2025
Last refreshed

Indicates whether all men are allowed to vote in national elections. It neither considers informal restrictions nor legal restrictions based on age, criminal conviction, disability, and local residency.